Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Leonard Nimoy

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Ah well, as I've said before, I trust the Trek lit authors a lot, and I have confidence they will give us an interesting plot and successfully integrate Hobus and Romulus' destruction into the ongoing story. They might well be able to redeem the Romulus-blows-up plot in my eyes .

__________________
The seeds of the ORDERS OF DISCORDIA were planted by Greyface into his early disciples. They form the skeleton of the Aneristic Movement, which over-emphasizes the Principle of Order and is antagonistic to the necessary compliment.

If Donatra were to take power over all Romulans, though, she wouldn't downgrade herself to Praetor; she would keep herself as Empress. No one willingly goes from being a Monarch to being a mere head of government.

Not willingly, no. Perhaps as a result of a compromise with whoever is in control of the RSE.

Ummm. You do remember that Bacco was elected on a pro-peace, pro-diplomacy, anti-belligerence, let's-not-run-around-telling-everyone-that-we're-ready-to-go-to-war-with-them platform, right?

That's the sort of campaign ad that Arafel Pagro would run, not Nan Bacco.

If you want to get technical, Pagro struck me as more of a semi-isolationist, Ron-Paul-ish, "We-should-not-ally-ouselves-with-any-authoratarian-governments" type.

And I am not a supporter of Ron Paul.

As for the ad, its actual words said, "for some, the bear is tame, for others, it's dangerous."

To drag that out in the public sphere does not actually increase Federation security, though. Foreign states would be observing that kind of campaign rhetoric, and it would register with them. They would take it as a message of hostility and belligerence. To make the, "Let's get ready to kick everyone's ass just in case" notion a central part of your political platform is to, in essence, declare to the galaxy that you are untrustworthy, suspicious of others, and unwilling to trust others, and are therefore an unreliable potential ally.

The ad does not say "Let's get ready to kick everyone's ass just in case". It says, "since no one can know for sure who's right, doesn't it make sense to be as strong as (not stronger than) the bear?"

If the Typhon Pact takes such a statement as a notion that the UFP is "untrustworthy, suspicious of others, and unwilling to trust others, and therefore an unreliable potential ally", rather than simply "a force we can't bully around which me must therefore take seriously", than frankly, it's they who are engaging in fear-culling and warmongering.

Reagan is just lucky that Gorbachev was the guy who came to power in the Soviet Union in '85, leading to the liberalization policies that weakened Soviet unity and promoted the previously-suppressed nationalist sentiments that brought down the USSR.

You still persist in trying to provoke me, Mr. Bond....

I could easily refute that...but it would take this thread too far off topic.

God knows what would have happened if a less liberal, more hot-headed asshat had taken the Kremlin.

"Hot-headed", eh? War would have been his fault, then...assuming war broke out.

__________________
"The saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia.... 'Needs and abilities' are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to 'the State shall take, the State shall give'."

As for the Hobus star's ultra-nova...at least the movie (and the comic) kept the "science" vauge enough to allow any "technobabble" to potentially be used as an explanation....

__________________
"The saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia.... 'Needs and abilities' are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to 'the State shall take, the State shall give'."

To drag that out in the public sphere does not actually increase Federation security, though. Foreign states would be observing that kind of campaign rhetoric, and it would register with them. They would take it as a message of hostility and belligerence. To make the, "Let's get ready to kick everyone's ass just in case" notion a central part of your political platform is to, in essence, declare to the galaxy that you are untrustworthy, suspicious of others, and unwilling to trust others, and are therefore an unreliable potential ally.

The ad does not say "Let's get ready to kick everyone's ass just in case". It says, "since no one can know for sure who's right, doesn't it make sense to be as strong as (not stronger than) the bear?"

If the Typhon Pact takes such a statement as a notion that the UFP is "untrustworthy, suspicious of others, and unwilling to trust others, and therefore an unreliable potential ally", rather than simply "a force we can't bully around which me must therefore take seriously", than frankly, it's they who are engaging in fear-culling and warmongering.

How would you react if you saw that in Russian Presidential elections, President Medvedev were running on a platform of, "We don't know if the Americans are going to declare war on us for our oil, but shouldn't we build up our military and our nuclear arsenal enough that we can defeat them?"

If you're like most people, you would take it as an implicit threat to the national security of the United States.

So it is with the Typhon Pact. The Federation needs to present itself as being open to peace and diplomacy, not assuage its inner machismo by making undiplomatic messages of its ability to defeat the galaxy.

Reagan is just lucky that Gorbachev was the guy who came to power in the Soviet Union in '85, leading to the liberalization policies that weakened Soviet unity and promoted the previously-suppressed nationalist sentiments that brought down the USSR.

You still persist in trying to provoke me, Mr. Bond....

You're the one who brought up Reagan, not me.

"Hot-headed", eh? War would have been his fault, then...assuming war broke out.

It would have been the fault of both parties.

A man who pokes a bear cannot claim innocence when the bear tries to eat him.

Rush Limborg wrote:

As for the Hobus star's ultra-nova...at least the movie (and the comic) kept the "science" vauge enough to allow any "technobabble" to potentially be used as an explanation....

Very true. Heck, maybe Nero blames Spock and the Federation in part because one of the UFP's Khitomer allies was partly responsible for what happened in some way...?

Very true. Heck, maybe Nero blames Spock and the Federation in part because one of the UFP's Khitomer allies was partly responsible for what happened in some way...?

Partly responsible inadvertently I hope. I wouldn't want our beloved Federation to be involved in nefarious activities of this scale again.

It could be our illegitimate, self-righteous Section 31 again with reasoning such as: "We projected and predicted that the Romulans would be attacking the UFP soon with the new Borg technology they've adapted (Narada). Starfleet wouldn't have a chance." Wouldn't be the first time they've attempted genocide. Despicable.

Very true. Heck, maybe Nero blames Spock and the Federation in part because one of the UFP's Khitomer allies was partly responsible for what happened in some way...?

Partly responsible inadvertently I hope. I wouldn't want our beloved Federation to be involved in nefarious activities of this scale again.

It could be our illegitimate, self-righteous Section 31 again with reasoning such as: "We projected and predicted that the Romulans would be attacking the UFP soon with the new Borg technology they've adapted (Narada). Starfleet wouldn't have a chance." Wouldn't be the first time they've attempted genocide. Despicable.

I was thinking maybe the Cardassians would be up to something dirty without telling the Feds, myself...

You clearly haven't been reading enough, then; I am considerably less relativistic than many, many political philosophers and critics who are actually in any way prominent.

Tell me - who was responsible for the start of the second world war?

Depends. Do you count World War II as starting when Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, or as starting when the Third Reich invaded Poland in 1939?

I would tend to argue that World War II had a mixture of causes. The most important cause was the fact that expansionist, illiberal dictatorships had taken hold in Germany, Italy, and Japan, but one should not ignore the fact that, in Germany, Hitler was able to seize power in part because of the economic depredations of the German populace after World War I, or that Japan itself had become a major world empire in part because of its desire to avoid becoming one of the many oppressed colonies that they saw the Western countries taking. If such a view were to have a summary, I suppose I would say, "World War II was caused by a combination of the rise of conquest-hungry tyrants and by unresolved issues from World War I."

As for World War I.... No, I can't say I view the Allies or the Central Powers as having been the good guys in that fight. World War I basically stemmed from the competition amongst the Western countries to carve up the world into empires, and as such I view the major powers in that war as having all been the aggressors.

Or for the 9 11 terrorist attack?

I do believe that I've always held that Osama bin Ladin and the al Qaeda terrorist network were responsible for 9/11. Does that mean that I think we should ignore the sometimes shameful role the U.S. government has played in the politics of the Muslim world? No, it does not. Does the fact that I acknowledge that the United States has done wrong mean that I think 9/11 was in any way justified? No, it does not. President Obama's speech in Cairo on U.S.-Muslim relations earlier this summer was one that outlined most of the basic views I hold on that issue.

Getting back into the Trekverse, I think I've been very clear throughout this thread not to argue that the political actors are necessarily right or accurate, but simply that they would have certain opinions and would be capable of logically defending them.

Who's right? Who's wrong? Well, there's that old saying that the truth is a three-sided sword.

You response was as I predicted, Sci (even included the "obligatory" condescending remark) - well, almost: I expected that you'll go back to the 19th century to explain the war.

Personally, I think the Axis powers lost any right to claim they were justified or even excused in their actions when they began to conquer other nations.
Similarly with bin Laden and WTC.

You want to find motivations for the axis powers leaders/bin Laden? Fine
Just don't forget - they were not puppets - they made their own decisions (which you can't justify with causality chains).
And I doubt the victims from the concentration camps or WTC cared about what happened a decade ago.

And, in the trekverse - there's a big difference between propaganda and being able to morally justify one's position.

Everyone has motivations. They don't simply do things for the sake of it. Sci is simply engaged in attempts to understand and explain the causes behind these conflicts; this includes the motivations of all the participants. Sci never said bin Laden or the Axis powers were right, he or she (sorry, Sci, still not sure) is simply explaining the historical and political background to these events. Surely you don't have a problem with that?

__________________
The seeds of the ORDERS OF DISCORDIA were planted by Greyface into his early disciples. They form the skeleton of the Aneristic Movement, which over-emphasizes the Principle of Order and is antagonistic to the necessary compliment.